No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
POLITICAL SCIENTISTS HAVE ARGUED AND WRITTEN AT LENGTH on theories of integration and their application to the European Communities, in particular whether its development sùpports the tenets of functionalism, neo-functionalism or inter-governmentalism, and how far each of these theories has lain behind the Community's progress. Whatever views may be held on this, one feature of the European Communities is undeniable and that is its basis of parliamentary democracy. In fact, a system of government involving responsibility to a parliament elected by direct universal suffrage, is perhaps the only indispensable criterion for membership of the European Communities. Negotiations may take place to cope with economic, social or demographic diffiulties, often very considerable in countries applying for membership, but if the applicant is not a parliamentary democracy, as this term is understood in Western Europe, then in practice negotiations cannot even begin. This is illustrated by the attitudes which have been adopted by all the Communities’ institutions and member-governments towards the applications of Greece, Spain and Portugal first to become associated with and later to join as full members. These applications were only considered after dictatorships in each of the countries concerned had ended.
1 The articles in this special issue were presented at the International Political Science Association, XIth World Congress, Moscow, 12–18 August 1979, and are published here by courtesy of the IPSA Research Committee on European Unification.
2 The different theories are well summarized and assessed in this context in Policymaking in the European Communities by Wallace, Helen, William Wallace and Carole Webb, London, John Wiley & Sons, 1977 Google Scholar.
3 See Art. 137 of EEC Treaty and similar provisions in the other treaties.
4 See for example Blondel, Jean, Comparative Legislatures, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1973 Google Scholar, in which most of the categories listed above are described as ‘residual’ parliamentary functions; Duverger, Maurice, La monarchie republicaine, (Coll. Libertés 2000), Paris, Laffont, 1974 Google Scholar, and a summary of other works relevant in this context, in Coombes, David, The Future of the European Parliament, London, Policy Studies Institute, 1979 Google Scholar.
5 It is true that the French Parliament, under the constitution of the Fifth Republic, is formally restricted to the Domaine de la Loi (as opposed to the Domaine du Gouvernement), but this is more a legal restriction applying to legislative power and less to the general area of concern of the French Parliament.
6 Art. 148 of the EEC Treaty.
7 See for example Herman, Valentine & Lodge, Juliet, ‘Is the European Parliament a Parliament?’, European Journal of Political Research Google Scholar. (The authors conclude that it is not, and instance the absence of legislative powers as a substantial reason.)
8 See Official Report, House of Commons, 25 June 1979.
9 Treaty of 22 July 1975 amending financial provisions of Treaties, Art. 12 (Official Journal (OJ) L359, 31 December 1977).
10 ‘Non‐obligatory’ expenditure is that not necessarily resulting from the Treaties or from acts adopted in accordance with them, cf. Treaty of 22 July 1975 amending financial provisions of Treaties Art. 12 (OJ, L359, 31 December 1977).
11 See Minutes of proceedings of the European Parliament, 25 October 1978, on draft amendment No. 12; OJ, C275/34, 20 November 1978; and Minutes, 14 December 1978; OJ C6/52, 8 January 1979. Debates of European Parliament, 14 December 1978. Annex to OJ No. 237, pp. 190–203.
12 Provided for in Art. 144 of the EEC Treaty and corresponding provisions in the other Treaties.
13 See for example Coombes, David, The Future of the European Parliament, London, Policy Studies Institute, 1979 Google Scholar.
14 Art. 140, 4th paragraph of the EEC Treaty and equivalent provisions in the other Treaties.
15 See the ‘Blumenfeld’ Report on Political Cooperation of the European Parliament’s Political Affairs Committee, Doc. 427/77, & Resolution, OJ C/36/32, 13 February 1978.
16 African, Caribbean and Pacific.
17 See The Guardian, 3 April 1979.
18 In Tribune, 3, 10 and 17 March 1979.
19 Attributed to Alfred Austin, British Poet Laureate of his day, writing about the illness of the Prince of Wales, subsequently King Edward VII.
20 See for example Professor Sidjanski, D., Auditions publiques dans la Communauté Europeenne, University of Geneva, 1976 Google Scholar.
21 One Dutch Chairman of a parliamentary Defence Committee made it a rule always to reply to offers of secret information that if it was so secret that it should not be disclosed to one of the electors he represented, then it should not be disclosed to him.
22 Though it is perhaps worth noting that the Judges of the European Court of Human Rights are elected by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly from short lists of nominees supplied by member‐governments.
23 See European Parliament Document No. 29/79 and Minutes of Proceedings, 11 May 1979; OJ, C140/153, 5 June 1979.
24 Report by Mr Bangemann for Legal Affairs Committee (doc. 82/77) Resolution adopted 12 May 1977; see Minutes of Proceedings, OJ C133/50, 6 June 1977.
25 Supplement 1/76 to the Bulletin of the European Communities.
26 France: Law authorizing the approval of the Council Act, 20 September 1976 relating to direct elections (Law 77–680, 30 June 1977).
United Kingdom: European Assembly Elections Act 1978 (1978 Chap. 10, see. 6).